I would much rather have an extra battery in my pocket than a large hunk of magneseum hanging off the bottom of my camera just to double the battery capacity.

It's not so much about battery capacity as it is about ergonomics, and better balance with larger lenses. After a day of shooting with a 70-200/2.8 or 100-400 on a non-gripped body, my hand hurts. With a gripped body, it does not - And the integrated grip of the 1-series bodies makes them more comfortable to hold than other bodies with an accessory grip.

I would much rather have an extra battery in my pocket than a large hunk of magneseum hanging off the bottom of my camera just to double the battery capacity.

It's not so much about battery capacity as it is about ergonomics, and better balance with larger lenses. After a day of shooting with a 70-200/2.8 or 100-400 on a non-gripped body, my hand hurts. With a gripped body, it does not - And the integrated grip of the 1-series bodies makes them more comfortable to hold than other bodies with an accessory grip.

Yeah, i have been shaking my head at the posts regarding the grip... LOL guess weather sealing ...whgo cares about that right, lets make the grip removable and expose some parts to moisture that wouldn't have been exposed with an integrated grip....ugggg

People that are satisfied taking pictures with there phones most likely never where in the DSLR market to begin with.Thats just the social pic snappers people that like good quality pics will always want a DSLR but hey its recession/crisis. My free spendable income keeps going down as insurancen, Food and everything keeps going up in price and my income isnt going up.so i simply do not have money for thoustant dollar bodys and multi thousant dollar lenses.The last generation canon lensen have had some seriously absurd price gains which most normal non professionals simply can no longer afford.

I agree here, it's not the smartphones eating into the dSLR market, the smartphones kill the P&S cameras.I think several things come together for dSLRs:

1) the dSLR market is quite mature now. In a decade, a remarkable improvement happened in sensor technology, so there was incentive to switch from film to digital, there was incentive to upgrade to a new model dSLR. So, there was a big "bubble" so to speak of pent up demand that could be satisfied. Many people that would buy a dSLR have one by now probably. Now, I think the market will return more to a level situation where you go through normal replacement cycles. People will think twice before they buy a new body, "does it really give much more than what I already have?" That's why Canon and everybody is also pushing the video area, to keep adding new features and thereby a market sector not yet saturated. Even that is not enough anymore, as camera makers are looking into medium format, and security camera businesses. Pushing more megapixels (D800) down the throat of people is probably not giving the huge sales increases hoped for - many people realize that files get huge and the improvement in quality is minimal if one doesn't invest time and effort to get the maximum out of the sensor. And most images are viewed on screens that don't have such a high resolution. Likewise, the dynamic range wars (whether 12 or 14 stops) are incremental gains that will not cause a huge boost to the market. Of course, there will always be pros, and tech users that go for the top - as with computers, where gamers build their own customized ultimate gaming machines, but this is a limited market.

2) As pointed out, weak economy, people need to save.

3) Maybe less newcomers to the market. There tend to be fads of what's a hot hobby, maybe the hype for pictures is somewhat dying down, people being oversaturated with images flooding the web.

So, the only way to get a lot of people to buy new cameras is with a substantial innovation in sensor technology.

Agreed! Well, mostly agree - "it's not the smartphones eating into the dSLR market, the smartphones kill the P&S cameras." A product gets replaced when either A something better comes around, or B, it gets broken, lost, stolen, you baby pukes on it, you brother drops it in the pool, - or you use it all the time and it's just time to replace it, etc etc etc. If when you leave the house you look at your little slr bag say 90% of the time, i don't want to lug that around then it's gonna be used less, less miles = less wear and tear, less chances for it to be broken and or stolen, or any of the other calamities mentioned above. If you use it less, then the need to upgrade is less, and while yeah there are obvious benefits of going from like a rebel to a 70d, or a 6d, etc etc, is there a need when my cell phone seems to do just fine and hell, i can bring my cell phone anywhere ---

And this is a biggie here --- think of how many awesome events people would love to bring their cameras too but can't because the venue does not allow pro gear (which most venues describe as anything with an interchangeable lens). Stuff like that leads to a lot of leaving the camera at home...

this i do think would lead to less people taking the leap into the slr market - which leads right to where I totally agree --- the slr market is a mature market, less people are jumping in. Last year both canon and nikon released pro bodies and people bought them, that buying frenzy has slowed and we're now between product cycles. Yeah, there's a new rebel and the new 70d, and nikon has their equivalent models --- and if you ask me, that's the market that will suffer from the growing use of cell phones.

Let's face it, the marketing side is based off of the upgrade path:

1 - wow, loving taking pics on my cell phone, but want more control2 - nice, bought my first P&S3 - lost it, just bought the next model up4 - the limitations are frustrating me - time to upgrade - first slr5 - now it's time to buy lenses

that was the basic path, you can add step 6 and 7 and 8 for those that want to take the next step --- but for the bulk of the consumer market. But now we are in the social network age, and this is where cell phones jack everything up. the average consumer cares more about instant access than quality. Yeah, the slr shot can be printed huge, but does that get my picture to facebook any easier? Adding wifi to slr's does help on this side, but, I think slr's at least in the consumer bracket need a more robust web interface if they are to compete with cell phones in that market.

Of course, then there's the pro market, which will care about quality, which will whine about DR, banding, all the stuff we hear all the time here. But the pro market would be the mature part, the part that will only upgrade where it makes sense - and other than a few lenses, there's not much new and interesting going on - and - one should point out that there shouldn't be - pros don't want to be recycling camera bodies every year - for most pros the natural 3-4 year cycle is about how long we want to be using a body. Other than that, it's lenses, and with L lenses we all know they hold their value and they don't degrade in quality as fast as a camera body - so new lens sales don't happen as often (unless they do kick ass rebate, just snagged me a 24mm 1.4 new because with the 4% back from B&H and the $200 rebate, that's close enough to used cost to make the leap).

Might get shot down in flames but:I agree with some of the earlier posts, the costs of the new Canon products are 2x the costs of the outgoing, this will have knock on effects in a difficult market/climate, considering most are just upgrades and nothing revolutionary, what do they expect? I have upgraded the 70-200 28 IS and the 24-70 2.8 recently to the MKII models and have been pleased but the costs, even with cash back offers, to be honest were really not worth it! I have not bothered with the 5D III, as friends have had issues and again apart from the focus system and dynamic range (maybe noise improvements) don't think its worth the price increase over my 5D II, I have a 5D MK II and 7D, so most things will be covered by these as far as bodies go... most Canon full frame users in my local camera club have moved to Nikon (using the D800 and lenses from Nikon, especially wide angle) this is because they feel Canon have lost the plot, when it comes to pricing anyway... Just out of interest and following the last few posts, both bodies are gripped and I have never taken then off either. Glyn

So, the only way to get a lot of people to buy new cameras is with a substantial innovation in sensor technology.

Was that intended as sarcasm or a joke?

no, just some unfinished thought left standing. I meant if you want to get existing owners to upgrade (and thus create a new purchase cycle, ( like in the past from 4 to 10 MPs or whatever), you really need some mouthwatering new features, e.g. a new sensor that is a serious jump over all current products, or some other neat feature that's not just a gimmick. Live view was a pretty neat feature when it came.Of course sensors are very mature at this point, so it's difficult to see how that could improve a lot, but the dual pixels of the sensor in the 70D could be a precursor to a whole bunch of things.

I would much rather have an extra battery in my pocket than a large hunk of magneseum hanging off the bottom of my camera just to double the battery capacity.

It's not so much about battery capacity as it is about ergonomics, and better balance with larger lenses. After a day of shooting with a 70-200/2.8 or 100-400 on a non-gripped body, my hand hurts. With a gripped body, it does not - And the integrated grip of the 1-series bodies makes them more comfortable to hold than other bodies with an accessory grip.

The 1D grip hurts my hands from shot one. It's too large and too heavy to hold comfortably. My 5D fits my hand perfectly and fits in my waist pack as well, which a 1 series body never will with the grip attached.

So, the only way to get a lot of people to buy new cameras is with a substantial innovation in sensor technology.

Was that intended as sarcasm or a joke?

no, just some unfinished thought left standing. I meant if you want to get existing owners to upgrade (and thus create a new purchase cycle, ( like in the past from 4 to 10 MPs or whatever), you really need some mouthwatering new features, e.g. a new sensor that is a serious jump over all current products, or some other neat feature that's not just a gimmick. Live view was a pretty neat feature when it came.Of course sensors are very mature at this point, so it's difficult to see how that could improve a lot, but the dual pixels of the sensor in the 70D could be a precursor to a whole bunch of things.

Ha! Now I understand.

I was confused because your post was so thoughtful and rational and then all of a sudden it seemed like you took a peculiar turn. I certainly agree with the basic premise. Just his week I succumbed to a 5DIII. I hesitate to say an "upgrade" from the 7D, because I still love the 7D and intend to keep using it.

I debated long and hard between a 6D, waiting for the 7DII and pulling out, what for me was, all the stops and going for a 5DIII. Part of my justification was that it is so good I think it will satisfy me for years to come. I think a challenge facing all camera makers, but especially Canon and Nikon, is that their products are now so good that there is little reason for buyers to jump to the next generation.

So, I guess I agree with the premise that it will take some "mouth watering" new features to get many current owners to upgrade. Personally, I'm not sure that for full frame sensors there is much that can be done to entice current owners. I'm amazed at how well the 5DIII sells (check out Amazon's best selling DSLRs). It's incredible to me that a $3,000 camera is selling as well as $500 cameras. I've got to think that many of those buyers are like me – rationalizing it as a camera that will satisfy them for the next 10 years or so.

With APS-C I think there is still sufficient room for improvement to entice current owners to upgrade. If the 7DII makes some significant improvements in the sensor, I'll have a hard time resisting. But, I'll also want 5D quality autofocus and a few other goodies.

Frankly, I think another challenge all manufacturers face is not only that the technology has matured, but the customer base is aging out. I think it is going to be very hard for Canon and Nikon to attract younger buyers and I think some of the their recent models show they are pretty desperately trying anything they can think of, but don't seem to be having much success.

The best hope for Canon and Nikon (at least temporarily) may be an expanding world economy. If the economies in the currently underdeveloped world improve, they may get a temporary boost, as they have with China. Other than that, I'm guessing all manufacturers will have to learn to live with a market that is growing at a much slower pace than in the past several years.

Canon and Nikon may actually be the best positioned to adapt to the changing market, because until the explosion of digital technology, I'm pretty sure the growth in the film and SLR market was pretty modest.

We should all just switch to the Nokia 41 MP phone, because it's better than a D800E !! It has more resolution and therefore, more dynamic range!! It even has more reach advantage...and more crop flexibility, according to the tv ads I've seen. Makes perfect sense.

If the premise of this "news" is really that people are using phones rather than DSLR's...well those people are not serious photographers anyway, so they're better off not wasting their parents' money asking for DSLR's as gifts, etc. Far better for the parents to spend $300 a month on their phone data plans for their kids and themselves...money well spent Definitely not annoying at all for kids to be texting 24/7, and while driving...yep that's just fine with me! As long as I'm not driving near one...

It's easy to see why Canon would be pursuing medium format digital, as previously rumored...perhaps this will put an end to the "rebel" line eventually? There need not be an "entry level" DSLR, if nobody wants to enter.

I would much rather have an extra battery in my pocket than a large hunk of magneseum hanging off the bottom of my camera just to double the battery capacity.

It's not so much about battery capacity as it is about ergonomics, and better balance with larger lenses. After a day of shooting with a 70-200/2.8 or 100-400 on a non-gripped body, my hand hurts. With a gripped body, it does not - And the integrated grip of the 1-series bodies makes them more comfortable to hold than other bodies with an accessory grip.

The 1D grip hurts my hands from shot one. It's too large and too heavy to hold comfortably. My 5D fits my hand perfectly and fits in my waist pack as well, which a 1 series body never will with the grip attached.

It's not so much the grip, it's the weight of the 1 series. I got a cheap grip for my 6D, and it can be used with only one battery if I want. It's very light, but not very rigid. It works fine though.

So, the only way to get a lot of people to buy new cameras is with a substantial innovation in sensor technology.

Was that intended as sarcasm or a joke?

no, just some unfinished thought left standing. I meant if you want to get existing owners to upgrade (and thus create a new purchase cycle, ( like in the past from 4 to 10 MPs or whatever), you really need some mouthwatering new features, e.g. a new sensor that is a serious jump over all current products, or some other neat feature that's not just a gimmick. Live view was a pretty neat feature when it came.Of course sensors are very mature at this point, so it's difficult to see how that could improve a lot, but the dual pixels of the sensor in the 70D could be a precursor to a whole bunch of things.

Ha! Now I understand.

I was confused because your post was so thoughtful and rational and then all of a sudden it seemed like you took a peculiar turn. I certainly agree with the basic premise. Just his week I succumbed to a 5DIII. I hesitate to say an "upgrade" from the 7D, because I still love the 7D and intend to keep using it.

I debated long and hard between a 6D, waiting for the 7DII and pulling out, what for me was, all the stops and going for a 5DIII. Part of my justification was that it is so good I think it will satisfy me for years to come. I think a challenge facing all camera makers, but especially Canon and Nikon, is that their products are now so good that there is little reason for buyers to jump to the next generation.

So, I guess I agree with the premise that it will take some "mouth watering" new features to get many current owners to upgrade. Personally, I'm not sure that for full frame sensors there is much that can be done to entice current owners. I'm amazed at how well the 5DIII sells (check out Amazon's best selling DSLRs). It's incredible to me that a $3,000 camera is selling as well as $500 cameras. I've got to think that many of those buyers are like me – rationalizing it as a camera that will satisfy them for the next 10 years or so.

With APS-C I think there is still sufficient room for improvement to entice current owners to upgrade. If the 7DII makes some significant improvements in the sensor, I'll have a hard time resisting. But, I'll also want 5D quality autofocus and a few other goodies.

Frankly, I think another challenge all manufacturers face is not only that the technology has matured, but the customer base is aging out. I think it is going to be very hard for Canon and Nikon to attract younger buyers and I think some of the their recent models show they are pretty desperately trying anything they can think of, but don't seem to be having much success.

The best hope for Canon and Nikon (at least temporarily) may be an expanding world economy. If the economies in the currently underdeveloped world improve, they may get a temporary boost, as they have with China. Other than that, I'm guessing all manufacturers will have to learn to live with a market that is growing at a much slower pace than in the past several years.

Canon and Nikon may actually be the best positioned to adapt to the changing market, because until the explosion of digital technology, I'm pretty sure the growth in the film and SLR market was pretty modest.

Very good points -especially the bit about the economy in general shrinking.

Canon's biggest problem is pretty much the same as Apple's right before Steve came back. Their R&D is spread across too many products that are poorly and inconsistently differentiated, and there's no single product that is clearly and unambiguously the best. The supposedly top-of-the-line 1D series clearly wins in terms of most of the pro body features, but loses to the 5Dmk3 in terms of sensor size (limiting its ultra-wide-angle use). The 5Dmk3, in turn, kills the 6D in autofocus but doesn't compare in low light noise or in end-user features like GPS and Wi-Fi. And so on.

Canon needs to drastically simplify their body lineup to at most four cameras—a consumer crop (70D, presumably), a pro crop (7D), a consumer full-frame (6D), and a pro full-frame (1D with a bigger sensor). Every camera should have features like Wi-Fi and GPS. The pro bodies should have additional features like more autofocus points. Other than crop factor, the two pro bodies should have similar features to one another, the consumer bodies should have similar features to one another, and every single feature on either of the consumer bodies should be available on both of the pro bodies.

Oh, and dump the mirrorless line. It was a failed experiment. Or at best, make it electronically identical to the consumer crop body, just in a different case, with the mirror box headers unpopulated, and with slightly different firmware.

Canon also needs to update their products in pairs. Update the consumer products at the same time, then the pro products, with each line getting an annual bump. This should be made more feasible by dropping the Rebel line entirely and merging the 5D and 1D lines.

The supposedly top-of-the-line 1D series clearly wins in terms of most of the pro body features, but loses to the 5Dmk3 in terms of sensor size (limiting its ultra-wide-angle use).

The sensors are the same size, but perhaps you meant ultimate image size in pixels? Probably you did not. There is no more aps-h (1.3x crop), so not sure why you think the sensor is smaller on the 1DX.

Not sure I completely agree with your strategy. Things will change over time to the product line and differentiation, no doubt. Again, Canon are interested in medium format...so that throws another wrinkle in. The future will be interesting, and very likely, expensive.

The problem with the 1 series now, is there is no studio model, there's only a catch-all model that is mostly for sports. As has been said many times by many people, Canon were miffed that the 5D2 cut heavily into, if not partially killed...sales of the 1Ds III, back in 2008. So it's kind of understandable that they weren't in a hurry to build another 1 series studio camera. They will, though. The problem is the sensor.

Here's why. I have something like $30k in EF mount lenses. Some are Canon, some are not but they are all premium offerings. I have a couple of cameras - a 1D4 and 5D2. I didn't really see much point in upgrading last time around because I don't need faster autofocus.

I'm trapped, I really resent Canon's unwillingness to compete where it matters to me. If I sold my lenses I'd be down around $10k... and anyway, Nikon does things backward.

Here is my message ... I NEED LESS NOISE ...

I'm not going to spend kilodollars on a camera that's just like the one I have. Nevertheless, in nine months or fewer, I will own a $3k, high resolution, low noise camera that carries my lenses. It's up to Canon to decide whether they build it.

Finally, I think that blaming the declining sales on economies is limp-wristed face-saving. Many of the world's economies are doing quite fine. The real issue is well earned customer apathy.